I think McVeigh was just anti-gov't. But a lot of the nuts in his camp use God to give themselves more credence. Unjustly.
Well, let's see... I'm too lazy to look it up, but I can only think of two acts of terrorism on American soil committed by Muslims. Rudolph committed at least two himself, so they're at least tied. But I know there have been abortion clinic bombings and shootings committed by others, right? I don't hold that the success of the operation is necessarily relevant to this discussion. I mean, are you saying that Christian terrorism isn't as bad as Muslim terrorism, because they're not as good at it?
Where does this incredibly idiotic idea come from (seriously, I'm wondering)? Do you have any clue how many people die from heart disease? Cancer?
Right. That must be it By your logic Hitler was no worse than a common murderer, he just was better at it.
No, but I think the targets of the Christian fundamentalists/terrorists are pretty well defined. Abortion clinics, abortion doctors are the main targets. You could argue homosexuals are a target, but I think there you are looking more at hate crimes, not terrorism and it's not just Christian fundamentalists who would persecute gays. Eric Rudolph and the Atlanta Olympic bombing would be the one exception, in terms of an attack that wasn't specifically an abortion clinic or abortion doc. Now on the other hand, we have a national terror alert (3-yellow-elevated for the rest of our lives, don't get me started...) and the targets are not as well defined. America is the target, it could be an airplane, a national monument, a government building. The threat is coming from people with more money, organization and training than a simpleton like Eric Rudolph or anybody really within the Christian fundamentalist movement. All of these attacks are awful, terrible and sad. But one is a genuine threat to national security (Al-Qaeda) and the other is a pretty well-contained threat to abortion clinics. There is a huge difference. Just a question that I don't really know the answer to: When was the last attack on an abortion clinic (bomb, gunshots, etc...)???
Personally, I blame Canada The Christians were pretty good at it in Northern Ireland. Yes, that's not America but you get my point, I hope, which is that none of the major occidental religions and probably none of the oriental ones either are in any position to throw stones. Not Islam. Not Christianty. Not Judaism. Not Hinduism. All of them have had a constant supply of self-appointed fools who have committed violence in the religion's name. In most cases, the religion's leaders themselves, exactly those who should be discouraging violence and hatred, have committed institutionalized violence aided and abetted by a great number of enthusiastic followers who never thought to question what they were doing. Does that make all religion worthless? Of course not, just as the presence of stupid hooligans does not mean we should ban soccer. It just means that denial of the facts won't work any more. Whatever major religion you have affiliated yourself with has its own problems and you're better off cleaning your own tent before you call someone else a slob. Too bad it's easier to just blame everyone else but ourselves so that's what most people do. In the Muslim world, it's all the fault of the imperialism and insatiable greed of the immoral Christians, not to mention the land-grabbing Jews. In America, it's all the fault of those fanatical Arab animals with 10th century minds using 21st century weapons. But it's never "our" fault. Of course not. "We're" the only perfectly rational, moral people on earth, aren't "we"? Some day, I'm going to remember how to make that little rolling eyes smiley person.
Yes, but those are natural deaths. Let's see, there were the crusades, the holocaust, countless uprisings in Africa, just to name a few. Yes, Cancer has all this beat, but it's still more than car accidents. Organized religion is just a tool to make people feel part of the group and get on with what otherwise may be an unimportant existence. Unfortunately it has also been used by some to get members of the group to kill members of another. But I digress.
Sorry, I don't buy the, "they're only targeting abortion clinics so it's not a big deal argument". If it weren't for the crack down of 9/11 they would be after politicians who vote against them, etc. Don't you think? It is a slippery slope.
Re: Personally, I blame Canada True, and that's just between Protestants and Catholics. They still believe in the same God. Absolutely, it's much easier to point a finger (or a gun, or in the case of our current leaders, some big ass 21st century bombs) at other peoples problems than worry about solving our own. That would require making difficult choices and reconsidering things we have held to be true for centuries. Try these for the smilies: type and you get big grin type and you get confused type and you get cool type and you get eek! type and you getembarrasment type and you get frown type and you get mad type and you get roll eyes (sarcastic) type and you get smile type and you get stick out tongue type and you get wink Also, make sure the box below in the Options for "Disable Smilies in This Post" isn't checked. Give it a try...
I don't mean to minimize the threat, but they are different. I really think the FBI may be able to contain the threat on abortion clinics, etc.... It certainly has seemed to work lately, I haven't heard of any bombings in quite some time. We've started 2 major wars (maybe WWIII depending on your point of view) because of 9/11 (sure, WMD was the apparent argument by the Bushies for the Iraq War, but we all know that's a crock.) They could go after politicians, I suppose. They probably have tried. Definitely it's a slippery slope, there wouldn't be much of a basis for discussion if it was black and white.
When's the last time an abortion clinic was bombed? Look, Rudolph is not a Christian. He wants to do harm, and just claiming that for a motive. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. There's no reason that anyone could ever justify the OP bombing Biblically, or abortion clinics, or the killing of abortion doctors. That would be like me going out and commiting some horrendous crime against people who happen to be Republicans, and the saying I did it because of persecution of Democrats (even though I'm not one.) While I'm not familiar with the Northern Ireland situation, let's consider something else commonly used to condemn Christians as terrorists-- the Crusades. IMO, It wasn't a clash of religions as much as it was culture. British wanted to conquer that area and impose its culture, which happened to include Protestantism. Perhaps I'm wrong on that. I have never heard, ever, one Pastor (or well-known Christian Leader) ever espouse violence, ever. No true leader would. Look at Jesus when he was arrested, he rebuked Peter for striking out against the Roman Guards. Standing against certain things which the church views against sin IS NOT TERRORISM. There's no way I could ever support abortion. That doesn't mean I'm going to go bomb a clinic. This notion of Christian terrorists is a made-up term to help some of you voice your opposition to "organized religion." While that is your right, let's be accurate. Except for a few people who claim to be Christians but are not, there are no "christians" who propose, endorse, espouse, conspire, or commit violence against anyone (except the terrorism of spanking their children, of course.)
He claims to be, he went to a Christian church. And a lot of Christians down in North Carolina held out hope for him. I agree blowing up abortion clinics is not what Christ would do, but it's what some 'so-called' Christians would do/have done. And who were those people protesting him a martyr when Paul Hill, a former minister, was executed down in Florida last month? Perhaps you are. Becuase they (the Christians) were trying to gain control of the holy land (Jerusalem). No that has nothing to do with religion at all. And the crusades preceeded English protestantism by about 500 years. Did you read the article that started the thread? Robertson said let's nuke the State Department!
I think you're right. With passage of the Patriot Act there has been a crackdown on a lot of 'radical' activity that I think goes beyond looking for the next Atta. I think with the heightened awareness of the authorities in this country it's harder for folks to commit any act of terrorism. Atleast that's what I tell myself to get through the day.
Liberal anti-death penalty activists. Seriously, people who are in the same boat as Hill. Claim to be a Christian and use the Bible to justify whatever they want to justify (kinda like Fred Phelps, but that's another 5 threads entirely.) Did you read my earlier post on Robertson? For what it's worth , here's an article in which Robertson "clarifies" his remark. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35066 I have been turned off by Robertson for a long, long time. He can barely speak, makes no sense, and has gone senile. He needs to retire, pronto. That being said, I know of no other time he's ever said statements like that. He's been on tv for what? 20 years? 30? And, to the best of our knowledge, he's made one statement that is seen as threatening. (and rightfully so). In my mind, I can give him the benefit of the doubt that, in his advance age, a connection between the brain and mouth malfunctioned. However, Pat, get off the tv quickly, please. Do us all a favor.
Well, I was up at 2am last night and stumbled across the 700 club. Pat Robertson brought the author back as a guest and said he wanted to make a correction on the remark he made because the state department had registered a complaint about it. So what did he say? He said the author's book says the state department should be gutted. He made every effort not to clarify his statement about nuking the state dept, barely touching upon it once. His guest simply said he would not choose the same words Robertson did and even added that maybe Robertson wouldn't either if he thoguht about it some more. BTW, his permanent smirk and attitude remind me of the President. Yuck.
Well, this is one of the problems. I get your point and I agree. Lots of people and organizations claim to represent a religion, and then proceed to abuse the teachings of that religion to further their own view of how the world should be. Bin Laden's interpretation of the Koran says that all non-believers should be exterminated, starting with the US. Rudolph's interpretation of the Bible says that all abortion doctors and clinics must be eliminated. Again, a small but vocal minority twists the teachings of their religion and in doing so, soils the entire message of those believers who embrace peace. Without speaking for Muslims, I doubt many of them think Bin Laden speaks for them or represents their beliefs in Islam. Most Christians condemn the stuff that Eric Rudolph did and think Pat Robertson, like Mt. Mike said, needs to fade away into the 50's. Aesthetically, they should just show the 700 club in black and white, Robertson hasn't made it that far out of the 50's. It's nothing new that people will abuse religion and wield God's name, believing that they act with His stamp of authority. I believe God has the last word and reserves the right to judge. Just an aside, but this is what James says about religion.... "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:27 If more people practiced this kind of religion, we would all be better off.
That's my point against organized religion. But it's not only about violoence against abortion clinics, or Bob Jones not allowing inter-racial dating, or one group denouncing gays, while another accepts them. All of these groups are pushing their agenda as the will of God. Do you really think Jesus would be against inter-racial dating?
Pat Robertson has a history of this sort of madness. I think he was the religious televengalist one of the biggest Scottish banks ( the Royal Bank of Scotland ?)were hoping to strike a £30m deal with. The deal was called off when Robertson said something along the lines of Scotland being a land dominated by transvestites and homosexuals. I'm pretty sure it was Robertson.
For the most part I agree with this...but inmy boredom I found this disturbing nugget: http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillMessageBoard.html All I can say is that I'm very glad most people don't think like these guys.
Just to clarify, the reason we're discussing Christian terrorism at all is NOT to criticize Christianity nor to attack organized religion - no matter how Richth76 tries to steer the conversation. It doesn't matter whether Rudolph or Robertson represent mainstream Christianity, or whether they should rightly be considered Christians at all. They consider themselves Christian, and they're not alone - they have organized and informal support. And the acts they commit are undeniably terrorism. So the question is whether people committing or threatening violence in the name of Christianity get more of a pass than people doing the same thing in the name of Islam or any other religion. Do they? I don't know. But if those who harbor terrorists are indeed just as bad as the terrorists themselves, then we have our own homegrown Taliban living among us.
Excellent post. I apologize for turning the conversation into my anti-organized religion diatribes. I just have a personal axe to grind. I consider myself a Christian btw.
Why do you have a DESIRE to roll up the KKK, militia groups, Tim McVeigh and abortion bombers under the rubric of Christianity in order to justify your religious bigotry?